ABSTRACT
Although some people might not consider drug courts to be an inter me di ate sanc tion, it appears that they fall into this category when you consider that they usually combine close proba tion super vi sion with substance abuse treat ment in an attempt to keep the offender from being incar cer ated. Indeed, the phenom enal growth and expan sion of drug courts can be largely attrib uted to the dissat is faction of tradi tional methods of dealing with drug offend ers and the belief that drug courts will reduce substance abuse and crim inal beha vior through close judi cial monit or ing and community-based treat ment services. According to Belenko (1998), drug courts differ from tradi tional courts in several import ant ways. First, drug courts attempt to manage cases quickly and make provi sions for the treatment to start as soon as possible after arrest. Second, drug courts have adopted a collab or at ive rather than an adversarial approach found in most tradi tional courts. Third, judges in drug courts are actively involved in the cases, holding regular status hear ings, meeting regu larly with treat ment providers and proba tion officers, and provid ing feed back to the offender. Finally, drug courts focus on provid ing treat ment services rather than simply increas ing sanc tions.
